News Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism

* The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized."

* Webster's New International Dictionary defines terrorism as the "act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; specif.: a The system of the Reign of Terror. b A mode of governing, or of opposing government, by intimidation. c Any policy of intimidation.

* The definition of the term in the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (2nd edition) begins:

Term with no agreement amongst government or academic analysts, but almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently to describe life-threatening actions perpetrated by politically motivated self-appointed sub-state groups. But if such actions are carried out on behalf of a widely approved cause, say the Maquis seeking to destabilize the Government of Vichy France then the term 'terrorism' is avoided and something more friendly is substituted. In short, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.

In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." [4]

Except for perhaps "Any policy of intimidation", and even that is a stretch, since I don't see how spray painting SUV's is intimidating.

Even the most radical eco groups, ELF and ALF have never caused bodily harm to anyone, their actions are always directed toward property. in spite of this the FBI has declared that eco terrorists are the greatest domestic terrorist threat.

Is this just more of the same movement to stifle and crush any opposition to the corporate acquisition and dispensation of all the worlds resources?

Is there a credible threat from people who rescue puppies?

Animal and environmental sabotage groups pose the nation's top domestic terror threat, F.B.I. officials told a Senate committee earlier this year. The federal officials said they had 150 open investigations of 1,200 crimes from 1990 to 2004 in which ecosaboteurs had taken responsibility.

The FBI says its concern is based on the fact that eco-terrorists are currently the most active of domestic terrorism groups. But when I spoke with FBI spokesperson Bill Carter, he was unable to detail the nature of the 1,200 "acts," how many had occurred in each of the past few years, or how many people have been involved in committing them (although Lewis' testimony says about 150 cases are currently under investigation). Even the top brass at the FBI seems confused about the extent of the threat. In February, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III testified before the Senate Committee on Intelligence that major incidents of eco-terror had actually declined in 2004.

I feel that this is a more accurate description of the whole "eco-terrorism" hype.

For industry, it's a way of destroying threats to their financial interests. For Republicans, it's a way to damage political enemies. For the mouth-breathing, talk-radio-listening Republican base, it's another focus for their spittle-flecked hatred. Everybody wins.

Don't get distracted. This whole kerfuffle about eco-terrorism isn't about objectively weighing threats to our country. Don't start arguing about what really is or really isn't terrorism. Don't feel pressured to incant the line, "Of course I disavow the tactics of those groups, but ..." The merits of the case against "eco-terrorism" are a total distraction. The people waging this war could give a rat's ass about the merits.

Staff: Mentor

Just to be clear:

-.... are you saying that people are using the word "terrorism" wrong when they call these actions "eco-terrorism" or just that it's not bad enough terrorism to put much effort into stopping it?
-Also, are you saying that "their actions are always directed toward property" just because they've never succeeded in killing someone or because they've actually never tried to kill anyone?
-And do you consider arson a crime that could potentially kill people and does that matter if the answer is yes?
-Also, you may want to check out dictionary.com's definition, which has a very slight difference from the ones you posted above, but makes a big difference to your point.

Yet the total damage done by the eco's pales in comparison to say, that which is done by drunk drivers.

Well drunk drivers aren't considered "domestic terrorist threats" for one...

It's fairly easy to minimize the idea of how dangerous eco-terrorists are when you ignore everything they do (ie bombings, large-scale arson...) and drop it down to "they just spray-painted SUV's". But hey, who am i to say that no one should be blindly appologizing for eco-terrorists considering all they are doing is shoveling toxic gases into the air via their "peaceful protests"

I guess the term is accurate for some who employ "Any policy of intimidation."

And yes, the Bush administration and many supporters do use "terrorist" and many other words, e.g. liberal, in a perjorative sense, when describing anyone who disagrees with the policies or views of the administration.

However, I do view activities like vandalism and arson, particularly to coerce or initimidate the victims to accept one's socio-political views as being more or less terrorism. Such activities are simply wrong, and undemocratic.

I guess the term is accurate for some who employ "Any policy of intimidation."

I gotta throw in that I think that definition is waaaaaay too broad. Couldn't we say a school yard bully is a terrorist then? I mean it's one of the more perfect definitions in my opinion. But why the hell are we arguing over what does websters say or what does some other dictionary say who is and isn't a terrorist? I some madman goes around bombing schools and hospitals and government buildings just for the fun of it in his own mind, are we not going to call him a terrorist? I mean unless we're arguing infront of some comittee on how to word a specific bill in Congress, i don't see the point in such semantics (or however you spell it).

And yes, the Bush administration and many supporters do use "terrorist" and many other words, e.g. liberal, in a perjorative sense, when describing anyone who disagrees with the policies or views of the admiminstration.

As do democrats... and people on this forum... neo-con comes to mind...

Eco-terroist are really hurting the eviroment and not helping eviroment.When they do somthing like burn down a constion site for a arparment complex where a forest used to be there causing more tree's to be cut down and the fire could cause a grass fire or forest fire to happen.

Eco-terroist are really hurting the eviroment and not helping eviroment.When they do somthing like burn down a constion site for a arparment complex where a forest used to be there causing more tree's to be cut down and the fire could cause a grass fire or forest fire to happen.

Yah when you're trying to get the masses to get something good done... blowing things up and setting fires and making people fear you is NOT the way to do things especially when they have shown that they will target anyone they feel is active in something they disagree with. The methods ok if you're like... Hitler trying to get the masses to go out and do bad things because being nice and asking people to do it isn't the preferred method in that case. But in this case, you're suppose to be trying to get people to work with you and be like "yay look at all the good things you're doing, i want to join".

But you're trying to argue over the term "terrorist" based on whether or not the damage done by it is comparable to anything else in the world. We might as well call the ocean a terrorist.

Nooooooooo lets leave the ocean and the sky out of this. The only difference between eco terrorists and drunk drivers is intent. Eco's know that they are going to cause damage, and exactly where and when.

Drunks don't have the mental faculties to realize that they will cause damage. Yet they do cause damage and many of them do it multiple times. And the damage they do is far in excess of what the eco'thugs do.

OK, how about if we call the DUI's: unwitting perveyors of carnage resembling certain terrorist acts.

Nooooooooo lets leave the ocean and the sky out of this. The only difference between eco terrorists and drunk drivers is intent. Eco's know that they are going to cause damage, and exactly where and when.

Yah and thats a huuuuuuuuuuuge difference. It's like the difference between tripping over a rock and accidently pushing someone off a cliff (haha no really, not just as lie to get out of going to jail) and literally tossing someone off a cliff. Its the difference between an accident and murder.

OK, how about if we call the DUI's: unwitting perveyors of carnage resembling certain terrorist acts.

Well, I've never seen a terrorist act that resulted in large pileups in I-5... and I don't want to be calling infractions "UPCRCTS" from now on :) A much better acronym must be formulated

I'm tryen to figure out if POOP can be expanded tos omething... "The cop gave me a ticket for pooping". No one will want to drive drunk after that.

Yah and thats a huuuuuuuuuuuge difference. It's like the difference between tripping over a rock and accidently pushing someone off a cliff (haha no really, not just as lie to get out of going to jail) and literally tossing someone off a cliff. Its the difference between an accident and murder.

Off topic, but I always wondered if that would be the perfect way to get away with murder. Get your victim to come with you to a cliff, push him off, and tell the police he slipped. How would they ever prove otherwise?

Back to the topic, it seems to me that the operative difference between a terrorist and a regular person who simply likes to instill fear in people is that a terrorist uses violent criminal activity in an attempt to use fear to institute policy change. Eco-terrorists are certainly terrorists in that sense; they commit violents crimes in the overt attempt to scare people into changing policy, both governmental and business policy.

If we aren't going to consider "Eco-Terrorists" terrorists when they burn and vandalize "property" in order to coerce and frighten people then I guess we shouldn't consider the KKK terrorists when they burn and vandalize property in order to coerce and frighten people.

If we aren't going to consider "Eco-Terrorists" terrorists when they burn and vandalize "property" in order to coerce and frighten people then I guess we shouldn't consider the KKK terrorists when they burn and vandalize property in order to coerce and frighten people.

But haven't KKK members killed people in the name of the organization?

But then again the KKK aren't trying to change any public policy (or if they are, its a rather unrealistic goal).

The KKK definitely have sociopolitical goals. They may realise that there is no way they are going to achieve their desires through legislation but they deifinitely will attempt to set a social precedence and use their intimidation tactics to get what they want regardless of legislation. That is, if black people are afraid to live in a certain town it doesn't matter what the law states they wont be living there anyway.

Eco-terrorists feel that they can not get things done through legislation so they might as well attack the organizations they have a problem with directly. Regardless of what the government says a corporation is not going to continue activities in a certain area where they are constantly plagued by eco-terrorist attacks which cost them money in damages and delays.

As far as the KKK killing people, I have no idea. Obviously they have in the past and I'm sure that members of the organization since have done so but whether or not there has been a conspiracy to murder by the organization any time in recent history is a different story.